Friday, April 19, 2013

"Descent into torture"... and reactions

The US “Constitution
Project” recently published the report of their Task Force examining US policy
in the ‘war on terror’. It’s worth noting that the Task
Force included a former Director of the FBI and a former President of the
American College of Physicians.

The report has been
described as “documenting the United States' descent into torture”.

Among the 600-page Report's
conclusions are:

U.S. forces, in many instances, used interrogation techniques on
detainees that constitute torture. American personnel conducted an even larger
number of interrogations that involved “cruel, inhuman, or degrading” treatment.
Both categories of actions violate U.S. laws and international treaties.

Of course:

“There is no
firm or persuasive evidence that the widespread use of harsh interrogation
techniques by U.S. forces produced significant information of value. There is
substantial evidence that much of the information adduced from the use of such
techniques was not useful or reliable”

Unfortunately, also, the
report also contains some evidence of the reprehensible involvement of psychologists
– my profession – in this abuse.

“The CIA OIG report describes the individuals who waterboarded Abu
Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri as “SERE psychologist/interrogators” or
“psychologist/interrogators.” The DOJ OPR report similarly states that
“psychologist/interrogators administered all of the interrogation sessions
involving EITs [enhanced interrogation techniques]” for Abu Zubaydah, and
administered the waterboard to al-Nashiri on two occasions. The Associated
Press, which cited anonymous U.S. intelligence officials, has also reported
that [named psychologists] personally waterboarded Abu Zubaydah and Abd al
Rahim al-Nashiri.”

In 2005 I was delighted that
the British Psychological Society very willingly and without demur agreed to
ratify an official statement repudiating
torture and making it clear that, at least in the UK, psychologists are
horrified by such practices. I’m proud to say that I led on the development of
that statement (and therefore, I’m afraid, I’m also responsible for its
weaknesses).

We made it clear that:

“Psychologists shall not knowingly provide any
premises, instruments, substances or knowledge that facilitates the practice of
torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or that
diminishes the ability of the victim to resist such treatment.”

It’s clearly not yet a story
that has come to a final conclusion. But, it’s timely to remind colleagues that some
of us did not participate in that “descent into torture”.